Re^3: split versus =~

> Honestly, what happens to the data after this step is a bit of a mystery to me. $X, $Y, and $Z are passed through some impressively scientific mathematical translations that I simply do not understand nor do I have the time to

Honestly this could also mean that this "impressive math" can't really handle negative numbers.

You must find a way to test your code!

If you can't tell when it fails, how can you even know it's buggy???

> Thanks anyways. Please know that my sarcasm was not directed at you.

Please know that my sarcasm is always directed at every direction ;-)

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the 𐍀𐌴𐍂𐌻 Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^3: split versus =~

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: split versus =~ by russlo (Novice) on Nov 10, 2022 at 16:48 UTC
You must find a way to test your code! I've scheduled a meeting with some responsible people that hopefully can tell me why this complex math keeps seeming to spit the same numbers out no matter what goes in. Hopefully they can give me some better way to test this than clicking the button repeatedly. Please know that my sarcasm is always directed at every direction ;-) Ha, good to know, thanks again.	[reply]
Re^5: split versus =~ by LanX (Saint) on Nov 10, 2022 at 22:29 UTC
AFAIR can standard CGIs be tested by executing them directly. See CGI Environment Variables for passing arguments. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the 𐍀𐌴𐍂𐌻 Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^6: split versus =~ by Fletch (Bishop) on Nov 11, 2022 at 02:12 UTC
One might argue if you must run the entire cgi script to test you’ve got more problems and might should get benefits from working on refactoring out the “business logic” into separate modules which you then can more easily test in isolation. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie.	[reply]